This is a crosspost from JeremiahHarding.com.
So I get mad on the internet for a living, and one constant irritant is Constitutionalism. Yes, it's good that the common Constitutionalist wants less statism than we have now - especially the most authentic variety who supports Ron Paul, and similar people. Those people have a vision, and it's a good one. Still, there's something about the way many revere the document that gets me super triggered. One way is #2A tweeters, with their federally and locally legal and limited range of firearms, shouting from the rooftops about their precious paper. From their heavily restricted and verily controlled pastures, they scream "FREEDOM", as though this is that. So let's be clear about the reason I'm writing this piece - to show those people who think they're free how desperately unfree they are, and to issue one solution to that which holds them back... Want gun rights? Shoot the Constitution.
So what is a gun, really? It's an equalizer. A weak person can hold a gun and become a deadly threat. It becomes the claws on the crustacean, the fangs on the snake, and the stinger on the scorpion. It protects the weak form from the strong, backed up with a threat of deadly violence. But that assumes one thing - it assumes the average person is willing to use it when it counts, and it also assumes, often incorrectly, that the strong isn't better armed or equipped. And the state is infinitely better equipped - by design. Let me weave you a tale.
You've seen the tropes of a peasant's revolt - torches and pitchforks, coming up against an ivory tower, fortified with bowmen and sword fighters, after the people decide they just can't take it anymore... but why the stark difference in arms? Well, because of multiple things - first, the obvious expense of materials to cast and forge a sword, then train a swordsman, is relatively high. Similarly, the cost of making a bow true, and the cost of training accurate shooters who wouldn't accidentally kill allies in friendly fire was high as well, albeit lesser, given the lower armor requirements of ranged attacks. A good shield and passing reflex for ranged attacks from enemies was all that was required.
So there was the obvious assertion that a peasant simply couldn't afford arms used by the nobles, and many times, it was left at that. Hard to care about such a power imbalance when you don't normally even live to be 40 with disease and injury. But what of taxation? The peasants often couldn't afford much past the King's Cut and operating and living expenses, and a sword was, many times, out of the question. Often, simple farm tools either in their own right, or retrofitted for another purpose, would do the job of defense. Staves were huge - you could make and wield one of those with minimal effort, and training mostly amounts to accurate weight placement. Was less about following the weight of a sword, for good edge alignment, or worrying about cutting yourself if you overswing, and more about managing your own.
But the difference remained stark, and most of the peasant class was too hard at work to train, much less revolt. But when they did, their weapons were not the elites'. And the elites? They liked it like that. A caste system, visible even in the time of unrest and disenfranchisement, it added ever-more to the image of nobility. A peasant with a sword? It's called fantasy for a reason.
So how does this apply to guns? Let's get to that.
A gun is not a sword. Precision and accuracy with a gun is easier to reliably manage than it is with a sword, and the ranges possible make a gunman equal to a swordsman and a bowman combined, and then some. It's also not required to be forged, and especially in the age of 3D printing, and it can be mass-produced, without excessive honing work. No need to make sure it can cut paper evenly or anything, because they're bullets, and they don't need to be sharp (although some applications require a finer tip). Also, a gun can be bought at peasant wages, meaning that it can actually equalize a peasant to the elite, right?
The elites saw it coming from the moment they commissioned this military hardware, and slowly, but surely, down through the centuries, they have enacted enough legislation to effectively unequalize people. The new sword? Depends on your government. Sometimes, it might be a Barrett 50 Cal in a state that doesn't allow them, and sometimes it might be a fully automatic weapon, capable of mowing down your block. They also have super-swords, in the form of missiles, standard bombs, and ultimately, nukes. And many more, really - plenty I could list.
Far from being an equalizer to the state, guns are now the torches and pitchforks, and the state can silently target the whole peasant mob with a Predator or Reaper drone strike, destroying them all while they see nothing coming. War has also changed, where now, instead of precise orders from the top, general goals are issued, and it's up to people closer to the ground to figure out how to get them achieved. This leads to a ton of creative solutions to killing the peasantry.
So what of the Constitution, you ask? Well, it's counterproductive to say the least, and more, not a guarantee of protection even when all laws are followed. Hailed as a glimmering example of how freedom is protected, it actually creates a false sense of security, as the ownership of guns equal to the class of royalty has been whittled away for as long as it's been claimed to be a right. Firearms regulations, individual state laws, neighborhood and building specific zones, and more, have created a disparity between the capabilities of the state and the people that makes the old days of torches and pitchforks look like freedom from a plantation.
And this is why, even when people are following the gun laws, they can be targeted, harassed, and more. From countless examples of open carriers being harrassed to countless more of them being arrested, is it any wonder so much other tyranny can take root? And that's only talking about people who live to tell the tale. Tamir Rice and John Crawford? They held TOYS, and were killed for it. Daniel Shaver had his pest control rifle, which distributes pesticide, and he was killed on his hand and knees. And Philando Castille? Killed in front of his family after following the law to the letter.
Following the law does not protect you. The beloved second amendment is nothing in the face of a petty tyrant. Your constitution is meaningless in the purview of an elite who does not care about you, much less your rights. You're a tool to be used until it malfunctions, and then quickly thrown away.
So what of a modern peasant revolt then? What if we stand up against these people, and take back the humanity that is ours? Well, you get LaVoy Finicum. You get cops who are almost never prosecuted shooting over a thousand people a year, all while the highest annual number of police killed a year is around 1980 at a whopping total of 115. They scream about a "war on cops", when the number of cop deaths is steadily lowering, and the number of civilian deaths is higher than ever. I've said it before - the common citizen is who dies. There are no parades for us. No diverted traffic when cops kill another poor, defenseless person, and no public outrage when weapons are drawn on the lower class. And this is just police - what if they turn the military on civilians, like France is doing now? Game over.
So they've largely already won. They're in a better position, in terms of tactics, might, and munitions. The peasants don't seem to stand a chance. Not only that, but a significant number of them would oppose any action taken to fight back. We live in a culture of blind acceptance, whereby any action taken against the masters must be civil. Meanwhile, Joe Gamaldi gets to cry about two cops who died after lying their way into a no-knock raid that killed two innocent people. Meanwhile, people in the wrong house, no-knock victims, people holding toy weapons, people holding things that look nothing like weapons (cell phones, and the like), poor people with no legal protection, harmless pets, and people engaged in defensive gun use always seem to find themselves at the end of a statist gun.
Is it any wonder that a nation founded on slavery, crushing rebellions, and lopsided voting, engages this way with its citizens? Is it any wonder that many mass shootings occur were firearm possession is banned? Is it any wonder more mass shootings are occurring the more laws are passed against the common person owning guns? So what can be done? Consider the following quotes...
"When the people move for liberation they must have the basic tool of liberation: the gun."And this one...
“Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment. If the guns are taken out of the hands of the people and only the pigs have guns, then it's off to the concentration camps, the gas chambers, or whatever the fascists in America come up with. One of the democratic rights of the United States, the Second Amendment to the Constitution, gives the people the right to bear arms. However, there is a greater right; the right of human dignity that gives all men the right to defend themselves.”Huey P. Newton
"Can one fulfill the ideation of self-determination if you are unable to defend the notion itself against all comers?
All weapons control therefor has one primary objective: to ensure that the government no matter what flavor is unhindered in using any and all means to subdue and force its subject peoples in its tax jurisdiction to submit to alien authority outside of the individual.
That’s it in a nutshell.
This means that every single edict, EO, law, regulation or whatever flavor of government coercion instantiated is a declaration of war on self-determination.
Second, does the same government that makes claims to heavily regulate the private ownership of weapons consequently regulate the government ownership of weapons?
No, of course not...
Guns have two enemies – rust and politicians.
The common person is the one upon whom war is being waged. I'm even restricting this piece to domestic conversation, so as to avoid the point of a broader piece I'm writing about how the US and allies broadly bully the world and destroy the common person wherever they go, resulting in untold civilian deaths. How can one say they fight a "war on terror", when they pose the single greatest terror threat on the planet: propaganda, pomp, and circumstance, rallying around the flag, and all?
A conclusion one could easily draw is that there's a reason so many troops become cops, and that cops act so much like troops - the real war is a war being waged on We, The People (right?) - and it's not gonna go away until we abscond with the notion that the police or the laws or even the second amendment to the precious Constitution, are here for our protection. The elites still have the swords, and us peasants don't even have pikes anymore - our weapons should be generously considered tantamount to toothpicks or dental floss compared to many of the things they have aimed directly at us every day. So what do we have?
On a baseline - numbers. Look up how many government officials there are, and see how easy it would be to overtake them, should you choose to. But keep in mind - the state could decimate the mob of pitchforks and torches with a triple tap from a UAV, and Chelsea Manning was in jail for a reason - they don't want you knowing how ready they are to do that to peaceful civilians - like it's a video game. And we can't legally return fire. So with no protection on the ground, what use is there in a Constitution?
Well, the real truth it that it is not the Constitution which gives rights, nor is it an amendment which protects yours. Rights are inherent to beings who understand and respect ethical structures. Also, the "right to bear arms" is a misnomer - positive rights don't exist in this form, any more than in the form of a "right to healthcare", or education, or anything else. Negative rights are the only things which could be considered rights, insofar as there exist things that are right, such as those not to be molested in your person, effects, and property, providing you grant the same to others. Boundaries created by mutual respect for boundaries are the only reason rights exist. Otherwise, they amount to nothing more than suggestions of privilege in a given system, revokable at any time, for any reason. So shoot the CONstitution, until its host of empty promises is shredded into fine confetti, and what is there left?
Disobedience. Not letting them disarm you, no matter what. Going against their orders and owning equal weaponry to what they aim at you. It's still easier than ever for the peasant to have a sword, but you have to be willing to first pick it up, and then use it. And maybe learn how TOR works, or talk to "those guys" in your town. As Bill Buppert says, "drive a rifle or ride a railcar". Disobey, and wear against the teeth of the cogs and the gears of the machine, and get anyone you care about to do the same. Because there's still hope, but only with great striving can such a hope be made into a reality. Before human freedom is permanently made fiction. Before there can be no fighting of swords, and no resulting peace. Before the blood runs so wide that it flows in the streets, like a river red under a sky of black, tyranny victorious, and a people defeated. You have time, but the hands inch ever closer to midnight.
Still solo on this, except my awesome patrons, and shows like this take days of research and many hours to put together solo. I don’t have a staff to feed, but I need to eat. If you want to support articles like this, feel free to help with a monthly or one time donation… as yet, I have not profited from this site. Hell, I haven’t even gotten half minimum wage, and most days, I get zero dollars. You can help change that.
Please consider donating on Venmo or PayPal. And if you really appreciated it, and want to help me make more of these more regularly, consider supporting me on BitBacker, SubscribeStar, or Patreon. Without your support, I can’t eat, much less make content.
If there’s a way you want to support me that I don’t list as of yet, let me know, and I’ll likely be more than happy to accomodate. But thank you so much if you decide to. I want this to be my job, and you could bring me one step closer. Also, consider subbing to my newsletter for a weekly update as to happenings. Also, feel free to subscribe on one of the platforms not-too-statist to have me.